Munna Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.455 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2022 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Munna Kumar Gupta, Son of Dashrath Prasad, Resident of Village- Kateya, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ashutosh Singh Yadav, Son of Pratap Singh Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O.- Inayat Nagar, P.S.- Inayat Nagar (Ayodhya), District- Faizabad, U.P. Presently Posted as Block Supply Officer, Kateya Block, Gopalganj. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP Amicus Curiae :

Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the Amicus Curiae.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by seizure and confiscation of 405 quintal of rice in Kateya P.S. Case No. 131 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. The confiscation proceeding was started in regard to the seized rice belonging to the petitioner but he preferred one application before learned S.D.J.M., Gopalganj for interim release of the rice. But by the impugned order dated 17.06.2022, learned S.D.J.M., Gopalganj has rejected his application,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.455 of 2022(9) dt.19-08-2025 2/2 holding that confiscation proceeding is going on in regard to the rice in question, and hence, he has no jurisdiction to entertain such application filed by the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, under Section 6(A)(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court has been ousted to entertain any application in regard to the Essential Commodities for its release or disposal, if confiscation proceeding has been already initiated by District Magistrate.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition in accordance with law.

6. Permission is accorded.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition for release of the seized rice.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan Ajay/- U T